E 491 
.S74 
Copy 1 



Who Fought the Battle. 

Strength of the Union and Confederate Forces Compared. 




An Address 

By Capt, Thos. Speed 

before the 

Army Corps Society 

of Louisville, Ky. 

January 26, 1904 



Who Fought the Battle 

STRENGTH OF THE UNION AND 
CONFEDERATE FORCES COMPARED 







P. 

Author. 



INTRODUCTION. 



The following address was delivered by Capt. Thomas 
Speed before the "Army Corps Society," which is an organ- 
ization in Louisville, Ky., the objects and purposes of 
which are shown in its Constitution, Article II : 

"Tlie object of this society is the formation of a social 
and friendly organization of men who actually served in 
the Union Army in the Civil War, or who are connected 
with that cause, for the purpose of interchange of thought 
and information, and to be prepared to take action, or 
exert influence, in such manner and upon such occasions 
as may be deemed expedient and appropriate. ' ' 

At a regular meeting on January 26, 1904, the subject 
for consideration that evening was presented in an address 
by Captain Speed, entitled, "Who Fought the Battle?" — • 
being a study of the case according to the official records 
and other authentic sources of information, showing from 
whence the soldiery came who fought in the great Civil 
War, and the numbers engaged on the opposite sides. 

Upon hearing the address there was such general 
approval and commendation that a resolution was unani- 
mously adopted to publish it, and a committee appointed 
to have charge of the work. Their duty having been per- 
formed, the address is herewith offered to the public. 

Andrew Cowan, 
Wm. BaiIvEy, 
Alfred PiRTi,E, 

Committee. 



Who Fought the Battle 



The United States stands to-day the foremost nation 
on the globe. As we contemplate this magnificent fact, 
we read with wonder a sentiment expressed by Alexander 
Stephens in his history of our Civil War, published in 1870. 
He tells of a soldier, in the agonies of a mortal wound, 
exclaiming, "Wliat is it all for?" Taking this as a text, 
he asks: "Why this array of armies? Why this fierce 
meeting in mortal combat? What is all this slaughter and 
carnage for?" He answers, declaring that on the part of 
the North it was to overturn the principles upon which 
our government was based — a war against right, against 
reason, justice and truth. The burden of the argument 
of his two large volumes is that State supremacy and the 
right of secession lie at the basis of our system, and with- 
out their complete recognition our system is a despotism. 
No less urgent for State supremacy and the right of seces- 
sion is Jefferson Davis, who published his two large vol- 
umes in 1881. 

Both Stephens and Davis strenuously maintain the 
"rope of sand" theory of the republic, that any State 
could rightfully withdraw and set up an entirely independ- 
ent nationality. 

The array of armies, the mortal combat, the carnage 
and slaughter, were all made necessary by the attempt 
to carr}' into actual execution this theory, which involved 
the destruction of all the hopes of the republic. Common 
sense repudiated the folly; and to resist the dismember- 
ment of the Union and save the grandest structure of 



WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 



government ever known to mankind, more than three 
hundred thousand soldiers laid down their lives. It was 
for this that we had the vast array of armies and terrible 
bloodshed, and it is because of this devotion to the flag 
of our country, that we now have the spectacle of our great 
republic leading all the nations of the world in liberty, 
equality, prosperity and strength. 

For nearly forty years we have had a restored national 
union. It has grown in the respect and admiration of all 
the peoples of the earth. It has the pride and love of all 
its own citizens. Its system is not a rope of sand. It is 
strong in its unity, and, instead of being a despotism, it is 
the same government of the people by the people on the 
foundations laid by the fathers. 

The magnitude of the task of saving the Union, when 
the great trouble came, was much noticed and commented 
on at the time. 

The Southern movement was so vast, and the power 
of the Union apparently so inadequate, it was regarded 
as an impossible thing forcibly to coerce the seceded States. 

The movement appeared far greater than an insurrec- 
tion or rebellion, and was more in the nature of a divi- 
sion of the country. Many counseled acquiescence. The 
leaders of the Confederacy derided the thought of coercion. 
They said that history contained no precedent for forcible 
resistance to a separation on so large a scale. The propo- 
sition of restoring the Union by force was greeted with 
jeering at home and abroad. The London Times summed 
up the prevailing idea by saying: "The Southern States 
may be wrong, but they are ten millions." John Bright 
wrote: "I can not see how the South, with its vast terri- 
tory, is to be subdued. The belief is largely held that the 
subjugation of the South is barely, if at all, possible." The 



WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 



philosopher Darwin wrote to his friend, Prof. Asa Gray: 
" How curious it is that you can think you can conquer the 
South! I never meet a soul who thinks it possible." 

A leading foreign journal said: "The Union seems to 
be destined to fall without a struggle, without a lament, 
without an epitaph," . . . that " the Union is effectually 
divided into rival confederacies," . . . that " reunion can 
never be expected." 

On every hand it was heard that the Southern Con- 
federacy was an estabUshed fact; that it could defend 
itself, and that there was not enough power in the nation 
to overthrow it. 

The outlook was appalling. Instead of one American 
republic, with one flag, and one purpose and destiny, there 
were to be two, filled with bitter contention. Inevitably 
following would be other separations, until the land would 
be divided and subdivided into factions endlessly warring 
with each other. 

The calamity was averted. The great battle was 
fought, and now it is a natural desire to know who saved 
the Union. What part and class of the people rallied to 
the flag? What were the numbers engaged on the respec- 
tive sides? 

In 1 86 1 the United States was far from being the power 
it is to-day. Its entire population was then but little over 
thirty millions. The secession of eleven States, with large 
support from three others, arrayed ten millions against 
the remaining twenty. The burden of overthrowing the 
Confederacy fell upon a total population of about twenty 
millions, and this was diminished by unfortunate division 
of sentiment. 

No proper estimate of the tremendous task can be had 



8 WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 

without full consideration of the angry division of senti- 
ment in the North. No feature in the history of the war 
period was more striking than the immense element in the 
North bitterly hostile to the war. The records now exist- 
ing in files of papers, in speeches and writings, in results 
of elections, all show that a very large percentage of the 
population of the non-seceding States violently opposed 
the war and clogged the efforts of the Union cause in every 
possible way. 

From this element there was no aid to the cause of the 
Union, but, on the contrary, great and serious obstruction, 
and corresponding encouragement to the cause of the 
South. Leaders of the school of Vallandigham and 
Voorhees were in every State. Their following was so 
large, they ran candidates for office with real and hvely 
hopes of electing them, and often actually doing so. The 
expectations of success on the part of the Southern states- 
men and generals were largely based upon dissension in 
the North. 

Proofs of this might be adduced at great length, but a 
few quotations from an address by the Virginia Legislature 
in 1864 will sufiice: 

"Your enemies are appalled at the magnitude of the 
task before them." 

"Dissensions exist among them." 

"The war is no longer popular." 

"A large, a growing party are for peace." 

"A still larger party have discovered that the war so 
far has only served to entail upon themselves a despotism 
which tramples down every public and private right." 

"Tom by party and personal strife, and conscious of 
the impotence of their scheme of conquest, the ranks of 
your enemies are already beginning to waver." 



WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 



From all the evidences, especially from the extreme 
tone of newspapers which had wide circulation, and from 
votes cast at elections, it is safe to say at least one fourth 
of the poptilation of the non-seceded States opposed the 
war. This element furnished no soldiers to the Union 
cause, but, on the contrary, gave untold trouble to the 
country. The strength of the loyal element had to be 
exerted not only to suppress the organized rebellion in the 
South, but also to keep down the active machinations of 
these disloyal foes in the rear. Troops had to be employed 
to guard prisons against their uprisings, and to suppress 
riots incited by them. They were unceasing in discourag- 
ing enlistments and in other opposition to the war. They 
were so numerous they kept in countenance, glorying in 
the name "Copperhead," and rejoicing over every Con- 
federate success. Their motto was, "No more men and no 
more money for this nefarious war." Such was the spirit 
of that element which burdened the nation while its patriots 
were suffering and dying for it at the front. 

We have recently seen, in the Philippine troubles, the 
effect of malcontent home opposition in prolonging the 
struggle, and causing the death of both natives and sol- 
diers. This faintly illustrates the virulence of this element 
in our great struggle, and the burden it was to the country. 
The battle for the Union was fought by volunteers from 
the loyal portion of the loyal States, not from the entire 
population. And many who went into the service can 
never forget the insults, taunts and jeers under which 
they left, and which greeted them if they had opportu- 
nity to revisit their homes. 

The object in mentioning this element is to point the 
fact that from it no soldiers went to the Union Army; and 
when it is deducted from the twenty millions of population 



lo WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 

in the non-seceding States, we find that the burden of the 
war fell upon the remaining three-fourths, or not over 
fifteen millions of population. 

There was no corresponding division of sentiment in 
the South. On the contrary, it is the universal testimony 
that the Confederacy was united in one sentiment and ani- 
mated by a unanimous enthusiasm. Alexander Stephens, 
in his history, uses this language: "No people on earth 
were ever more unanimous in any cause than were the 
people of the South." . . . There was not one in ten 
thousand of the people, at least in ten of the Southern 
States, whose heart and soul was not thorouglily enlisted 
in the cause." 

From the divided population of twenty millions, enough 
soldiers had to be drawn to overcome the undivided ten 
millions on their own ground. Such was the situation. 
What were the numbers of combatants each side sent to 
the field? What forces fought the battle on the respective 
sides ? 

To answer this question, the records are sufficient to 
make a close approximation, and the records must tell the 
story. All statements and estimates which ignore the 
records are worthless. Wild figures are constantly given, 
but to maintain an obstinate and defiant folly, like the 
Reverend Jasper, neither makes science nor history. 

Alexander Stephens gravely writes as follows in his 
history : 

" One of the most striking features was the great dis- 
parity between the numbers of forces on the opposite 
sides. From beginning to end quite 2,000,000 more 
Federal troops were brought into the field than the entire 
force of the Confederates. The Federal records show that 
they had from first to last 2,600,000 men in the service, 



WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE ii 

while the Confederates, all told, could not have much, 
if any, exceeded 600,000." 

This character of general statement is found in all the 
Southern accounts. It is made to appear in books, pam- 
phlets, magazines, papers, speeches and even inscribed upon 
monuments. 

A late expression is by the Governor of Louisiana, at 
the Annual Reunion of Confederates at New Orleans, 1903. 
He says: 

"With a total enlistment of 600,000 you confronted 
2,800,000." 

When writers and speakers so express themselves, it 
must be from ignorance or from willful misrepresentation. 
If from ignorance, it is inexcusable, for the record facts 
are open to all. If from a deliberate purpose to mislead, 
it is unwise, for the use of such figures will cause intelligent 
people to discredit any other statement they make. 

We will first inquire as to the alleged 2,700,000* Federal 
soldiers, and then consider how the actual number on the 
Confederate side compares with the alleged 600,000. The 
number 2,700,000 never represented the number of soldiers 
in the armies of the Union, and never purported to do so. 
All it ever represented was the total number of enlistments 
appearing on the records, regardless of how the number 
was made up. 

The same records which give the figures 2,700,000 
expressly show that the 2,700,000 enlistments were made 
up by numerous re-enlistments. One man enlisting twice 
or thrice, each time increased the number of enHstments; 
but he was only one man. 

If every individual soldier in the war had enlisted 



•Round numbers. In Hay and Nicholay'a Life of Lincoln it is said: "There 
were 2,690,401 names on the rolls, but these included re-enlistmeuts." 



12 WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 

twice, the 2,700,000 figure would represent just half that 
many men, or 1,350,000. The records do not show that 
this occurred, but they do show that at least one-third or 
more of the 2,700,000 recorded enlistments are re-enlist- 
ments. 

At the first, it was not supposed the war would be of 
long duration, and men were called out for one hundred 
days' service. There were also six-months, nine-months, 
twelve-months and three-years organizations. All this 
was natural, as the war continued longer than was at 
first expected. So also it was natural that, as the short- 
term organizations went out of service, the men compris- 
ing them, would enter the service again in the longer-term 
organizations. In this way hundreds of thousands were 
added to the record of enlistments without increase of 
men. In the years 1863 and 1864 a very large proportion 
of the three-years men re-enlisted in the Veteran organiza- 
tion, and this increased the record of enlistments largely 
over 200,000, without adding a single soldier. This fact in 
regard to the 2,700,000 aggregate of enlistments has been 
set forth at large in ways and times innumerable. To 
ignore it is simple obstinacy. It is, in fact, what is called 
"Cyclopedia information." Appleton's American Cyclo- 
pedia, published in 1876, gives the number of enlistments, 
and says the 2,700,000 "does not correctly represent the 
number of different persons under arms, as it includes re-en- 
listments." The Encyclopedia Brittanica gives 1,500,000 
as the total number of soldiers in the Federal armies. 
Greeley's history of the war, published in 1866, gives the 
total of enlistments and adds: "As many of these were 
mustered in twice or thrice, it is probable there were not 
more than 1,500,000 men." In Scribner's "Campaigns," 
a volume of "Statistics" gives the total of enlistments. 



WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 13 

and adds, "Men who re-enlisted are counted twice or more 
often." The actual number of men who by enlisting and 
re-enlisting made up the paper record of 2,700,000 has been 
variously estimated from 1,500,000 to 2,000,000. It is con- 
servative to place it at not over i ,700,000. It is not at all 
probable that it reached 2,000,000. 

Upon this point the census of 1890 is useful in the same 
way that it is useful in ascertaining the number of the 
Confederates, as will presently appear. This census shows 
the total number of soldiers and sailors of the United 
States living in 1890 to be 1,034,000. Allowing 1,000,- 
000 of these to be ex-soldiers of the Civil War, it would 
be impossible, b}^ adding all who had died, to swell the 
number up to 2,700,000. If we add the 350,000 who lost 
their lives during the war, it would require that 650,000 
should have died between the close of the war and 1 890, in 
order even to reach 2,000,000, and as this is excessive, it 
shows there must have been fewer than 2,000,000, all told. 

This is confirmed by another fact: It is a record fact 
that there were 1,000,000 volunteers to be discharged at 
the close of the war.* Adding the 350,000, who lost their 
lives in the war, it would require over 1,200,000 additional 
to make 2,700,000, which is so palpably excessive, it shows 
that it was by the re-enlisting of the same men that the 
2,700,000 aggregate of enlistments was made up. 

There are exact records of the enlistment of all the 
Federal soldiers, according to the various terms for which 
they enlisted. From these records calculation has been 
made of the number if all are put on a three-year basis. 
The result is 1,556,678, which number in reahty represents 



* The.v were scattered all over the country, some in the main armies, and other!? 
guarding tliousands of posts in cities and towns, and along railroads, and generally 
protecting the territory which had come under their control. 



14 WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 

the actual Federal force which contended with the Con- 
federate force obtainable by volunteering and conscription. 

From all that has been said it is plain that, instead of 
2,700,000 soldiers in the Federal armies, the number was 
considerably below 2,000,000. And according to the best 
estimates it did not exceed a figure between 1,500,000 and 
1,700,000, all told. This latter is the number given by 
Woodrow Wilson in his recently published history. His 
language is that the Federal forces were "in all 1,700,000." 
It is but reasonable to conclude that this distinguished 
historian has given these figures after investigating the 
records, and making the proper deduction from the aggre- 
gate of enlistments which is required by re-enlistments. 

It was this band of 1,700,000 patriots, who went to the 
field from the loyal portion of the population of the non- 
seceding States, who fought the battle. They were not 
furnished by the total population, but went from that ele- 
ment of the people who saw nothing but ruin and disaster 
in a dismembered union. 

What was the number on the Confederate side? The 
various estimates have been gathered in a volume entitled 
"Numbers and Losses in the Civil War," by Colonel Liver- 
more, of Boston, but it would be impracticable to go over 
them all at this time. 

We have seen that Stephens gives 600,000 as the total 
from first to last. Many others make the same statement. 
Adjutant General Cooper says no record of the number is 
to be found. In 1869 Dr. Joseph Jones, a Confederate 
surgeon, published a pamphlet, stating that "the available 
Confederate force, capable of active service in the field, did 
not during the entire war exceed 600,000." He says his 
"calculation is given only as an approximation." 



WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 15 

In a recent able address by General Thruston, of Nash- 
ville, an ex-Federal officer, he 533^5 that Dr. Jones' figures 
have been followed and republished in various forms, and 
quoted and requoted until in the South they have come 
to be regarded in some sort as official. 

In the South the number 600,000 is popularly stated 
as the total of the Confederate soldiers. So firmly is it 
fixed that it controls any and all other figures. 

Those who have sworn by the 600,000 figure are ready 
to dismiss every statement that conflicts. And yet the 
sole foundation for it consists in estimates which com- 
placently disregard the record figures. The statement of 
Dr. Jones is that "the available force, capable of effective 
service in the field, did not during the entire war exceed 
600,000 men." At the very beginning of this inquiry we 
may well ask, if the "available force capable of effective 
service in the field" was 600,000, what was the number of 
those not so available and effective? For these must be 
added to arrive at the whole, just as in giving the total on 
the Federal side, all are counted, including militia and 
"emergency men" and irregular organizations and veteran 
reserves, organized at the very end of the war, the greater 
part of whom never served in any capacity. General 
Tliruston has pointed out that the average effective strength 
of the Federal army was sixty- five per cent, of the enroll- 
ment, and that in the same proportion Dr. Jones' 600,000 
would represent an enrollment of about 1,000,000. 

In order to see the extravagant statements which are 
made, attention may be directed to almost any one pub- 
lished. 

Among the publications in the papers at the time of the 
Confederate Reunion in Louisville, in the year 1900, was an 
article by W. V. Moore, who claimed familiarity with the 



1 6 WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 

records, having worked upon them with Gen. Marcus J. 
Wright. Moore professed earnest desire to arrive at the 
truth, and worked it out that there were 650,000 Confed- 
erate soldiers, all told. When we examine his work, we are 
not impressed with the sincerity of his professions. For 
instance, he says: "The records show that it was a conflict 
wherein the aggregate of the forces engaged was in the 
ratio of about five to one ; the Federal enlistments in army 
and navy running up to more than 3,000,000 as against 
the 650,000 Confederates." He also states that 700,000 
men for the Federal armies were imported directly from 
Europe, and that the South furnished 500,000 soldiers to 
the Federal armies! 

Here is seen the animus behind the figures. He is too 
intelligent so to mistake the aggregate number of Federal 
enlistments as to make five Yankees to one Southerner, 
or to make the other statements seriously. We then look 
to the processes by which he produces the result of 
650,000, and we are reminded of the unjust steward who 
went to his master's debtors and asked, " How much 
owest thou?" And when a debtor said, "One hundred 
measures," he was told to write it down "fifty." Moore's 
method is to take the number of soldiers claimed to 
have been furnished by the several States, and estimate 
them down. By so doing, he cuts down Virginia to 60,000, 
Georgia to 90,000, Tennessee to 80,000 and all the others 
in Hke proportion. Even with these arbitrary substrac- 
tions, the 600,000 figure is exceeded, and without them 
the number would have exceeded 1,000,000. 

In this same article it is sho\vn that the total number 
of Confederate soldiers who lost their lives during the war 
was 337,000. Bearing this figure in mind, we turn to the 
historic report made at the same reunion by Gen. Stephen 



WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 17 

D. Lee, and there we find that, according to the census of 
1890, there were then Hving 432,000 Confederate soldiers. 
If we add the 337,000, we have 766,000, to which must be 
added all who died in the twenty-five years between the 
close of the war and 1890. In view of these statements, 
what becomes of the 600,000 figure? 

On this point, we may note that General Thruston gives 
the figures engraved on a monument at Austin, Texas, as 
follows : 

" Number of men enlisted : Confederate armies, 700,000 ; 
Federal armies, 2,859,132." "Losses from all causes: 
Confederate, 437,000; Federal, 485,216." 

Now, if the losses were 437,000 in the war, and many 
having died between the close of the war and 1890, and 
432,000 were still living in 1S90, what becomes of the 
600,000 figure? 

Again, we may go to the official records, and by adding 
the totals of the Confederate forces, as given early in the 
year 1864, we find there were then in the field, according 
to these reports, 481,160. If then we add all those who 
went into the service after that date under the urgent 
calls, and also add all who had been killed and died up to 
that time, and also add prisoners, what then becomes of 
the 600,000 figure? 

The census report of 1890 alone takes the 600,000 num- 
ber out of the case, for no method of ciphering can be 
devised to reduce the number of the dead during the war 
and for twenty-five years after, to only 168,000. 

It is a plain proposition, therefore, that there were 
more than 600,000, and the question arises, is there any 
record evidence of the actual number? 

The answer is, there is record evidence to show that 
the total number of Confederate soldiers was 1,000,000 or 



1 8 WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 

more. Nor is this in any sense a new or recent state- 
ment. It is often said, when the facts are set forth, that a 
discovery has been made. It is no discovery, it is only 
bringing forward the record facts of the case, which have 
existed all the time. Even in the article of Mr. Moore it 
is shown by him that other estimates carried the figure up 
to 1,000,000. 

The Century War Book, published in 1887, contains the 
following : ' ' Official returns show the whole number of 
" men enrolled (present and absent) in the active armies 
"of the Confederacy as follows: January i, 1862, 318,011; 
"January i, 1863, 465,584; January i, 1864,472,781; Janu- 
"ary i, 1865, 439,675. Very few, if any, of the local land 
"forces, and none of the naval, are included in this tab- 
"ular exhibit. If we take the 472,000 men in service at 
"the beginning of 1864, and add thereto 250,000 deaths 
"occurring prior to that date, it gives over 700,000. The 
"discharges for disability and other causes would probably 
"increase the number (inclusive of the militia and naval 
"forces) to over 1,000,000." 

It is stated by James G. Blaine, in his history, that the 
Confederates numbered more than i ,000,000. In General 
Thruston's address it is said: "General Ainsworth, of the 
War Department, has recently estimated their strength at 
about 1,000,000." 

In Hay and Nicholay's Life of Lincoln, the number is 
stated at about i ,000,000. In many other places we find 
this figure given. These are here mentioned to show that 
there has been a repetition of the 1,000,000 figure, as con- 
tinuously as of the 600,000 figure, the former following the 
record facts, the other being assertion only. 

A very careful estimate has been made of the total 
Confederate force from the number of regiments and other 



WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 19 

organizations knowTi to the records. By counting them 
all, and allowing a fair average number of soldiers to each, 
it has been estimated that the total number was about 
1 ,000,000. 

Another estimate has been made, based upon the 
record of returns of the Confederate armies at different 
periods, which also makes a total of about 1,000,000. 
Estimates have been made based upon the census of 
i860, and upon the reports of the several States of the 
numbers they respectively furnished. These make more 
than 1,000,000. 

Another method of computation is to take the official 
returns of the armies on both sides during the different 
years of the struggle, and note the ratio. This shows that 
the Federal forces never at any time outnumbered the 
Confederates as much as two to one; the Federals, also, 
being scattered, and the Confederates concentrated. 

Manifestly, any estimate which counts the number 
formally surrendering as the total of the Confederates in 
the closing days of the war is absolutely valueless. The 
number surrendered was about 175,000. But the reports 
show that three months before the end, there were more 
than 450,000 Confederate soldiers. What became of the 
difference between that number and the 175,000? The 
reports also show that the army of Northern Virginia had 
150)554 three months before the surrender, and at the sur- 
render there were less than 40,000. What became of that 
difference? There can be no other answer than that 
many dispersed and went to their homes without waiting 
for the formalities of surrender. This is confirmed by the 
Confederate reports in those last three months, which 
show great losses by desertion. 



20 WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 

General Thruston, who has carefully studied the records, 
has reached the conclusion that there were about 1,100,000 
Confederates, all told. 

Why were there not more than 600,000 Confederate 
soldiers? Why not more than 1,000,000? According to 
the census of i860, there were more than 1,200,000 men 
subject to military duty in the eleven seceded States, 
and aid went to them from the border States of not less 
than 100,000. If the whole number of Confederate sol- 
diers was only 600,000, we have the spectacle of the eleven 
Confederate States furnishing only 500,000 soldiers! 

Never were more impassioned calls for volunteers. 
Never were reasons for going to war more urgently repre- 
sented. It was called a fight against a ruthless, brutal 
invader. It was called a fight for home and country, for 
altar and fireside, wife, mother and child. The shirk was 
held up to scorn and execration. One of the great leaders 
said it was not a question of who could go, but a question 
of who could stay. Added to irresistible appeal were 
two conscription laws: one early in the war, taking all 
of the usual miUtary age; and one later, robbing the cradle 
and the grave; and yet it is unblushingly claimed that 
only 500,000 men could be obtained from the eleven 
seceded States! If this were true, under all the circum- 
stances, it would be cause for shame and humiliation. 
As it is not true, those who utter it ought to be branded 
as slanderers of the Southern people. 

If we take the number of soldiers furnished to the 
Confederacy according to the published claims of the 
seceded States, we have the following table: 



WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 21 

North Carolina (population 992,000) . 127,000 

Tennessee (population 1,100,000) . . 115,000 

Alabama (population 964,000) . . . 100,000 

Mississippi (population 791,000) . . 85,000 

Virginia (population 1,500,000) . . 150,000 

Georgia (population 1,059,000) . . 130,000 

Florida (population 140,000) . . . 15,000 

Louisiana (population 708,000) . . 53,000 

South Carolina (population 703,000) . 60,000 

Arkansas (population 435,000) . . 45,000 

Texas (population 604,000) .... 50,000 



Making a total .... 930,000 

To which must be added those who went from the border 
States of Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland, making a 
grand total of more than 1,000,000. These figures from 
the several States are authentically claimed and published. 
They are natural, considering the populations of the States. 
They are consistent with one another, according to popu- 
lation. Under the circumstances of the case, they are 
what would be expected. These figures show, with a fair 
uniformity, one soldier to ten of total population in all 
the States, and this very uniformity in the ratio confirms 
its correctness. 

The census returns of the United States, including that 
of 1900, just published, show that there is one in five of 
population, of military age. There being 6,000,000 white 
population in the Confederacy, and the war lasting four 
years, giving opportunity, as Jefferson Davis said, for the 
growing-up youths to enter service, it is plain there were 
first and last more than 1,000,000 men in the South capa- 
ble of military duty, the number in fact being over 1,200,006. 



22 WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 

When, therefore, the aid of the border States is added, the 
question may be asked in wonder, why were there not 
more than 600,000 Confederate soldiers? Why not more 
than 1,000,000? 

The foregoing presentation of the case is estabhshed 
by unimpeachable authority, as I will now proceed to 
show. 

In January, 1864, an official report was made to the 
Confederate Government by Col. E. D. Blake, Superintend- 
ent of Registration, which is published in Volume 3, Series 
4, page 95, War Records. It gives in detail the number 
of men furnished up to that time (close of 1863) from 
six of the Confederate States. The other five are not 
included in the report. The six which are reported are as 
follows : 

POPULATION. FURNISHED. 

Virginia 1,500,000 153.876 

North Carolina .... 992,000 88,457 

South Carolina .... 703,000 60,127 

Georgia 1,057,000 106,157 

Alabama 964,000 90.857 

Mississippi 791,000 66,982 

6,007,000 566,456 

Here is an authoritative official statement, made not 
for controversy, but for practical use in the midst of the 
conflict, and in strict Hue of duty. It outweighs all the 
approximations and guesses made since the war, for the 
purpose of minimizing the numbers engaged; and when 
analyzed, it conforms to the figures just spoken of as 
natural, reasonable and consistent. 



WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 23 

The six States mentioned furnished, up to the close of 
1863, 566,000 soldiers. The war lasted through 1864 and 
three months of 1865, during which time the appeals to 
rally to the cause were most urgent. The records show 
that in this period of the war General Lee was peculiarly 
active in urging the increase of the army. He repeatedly 
insisted that all should be brought into the field. He 
advised that all the work of the army should be done by 
negroes, so as to send all detailed men into the ranks. His 
language was: "Get out our entire arms-bearing popula- 
tion and relieve all detailed men with negroes." The 
records also show that at this period the Bureau of Con- 
scription was sweeping into the ranks every male white, 
between seventeen and forty-five, with absolutely unsparing 
zeal and diligence. Under the extraordinary pressure just 
at that time, we may be sure these six States sent in enough 
new soldiers to run the figures far above 600,000. Thus, 
out of a total population of 6,000,000 in these six States, 
more than 600,000 soldiers went to the field. In this we see 
the ratio of one soldier to ten of the total population 
already mentioned. Now, let us take the other five seceded 
States : 

Arkansas, with a population of . . 435,000 
Texas, with a population of . . . 604,000 
Tennessee, with a population of . 1,100,000 
Louisiana, with a population of . . 708,000 
Florida, with a population of . . . 140,000 



2,987,000 



One soldier in ten of total population is as natural from 
these as from the above six, which were officially reported. 
This gives nearly 300,000 to be added to the above 600,000, 



24 WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 

or over, and to this must be added those who went from 
the border States, Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland, mak- 
ing a total of 1 ,000,000 or more. 

From all that has been said, it is plain that 600,000 in 
no way represents the total number of soldiers who fought 
for the Confederacy. It is also plain that 2,700,000 in no 
way represents the number of Federal soldiers. To so use 
these figures shows a partisanship which is willing to 
ignore the record facts, and accept as truth the pleasing fal- 
lacy of the simple assertion of three or four or five to one. 

The inexorable logic of the official records shows that 
on the Federal side there were not over about 1,700,000 
soldiers, while on the Confederate side, taking statements 
of the several States and adding them together, and taking 
the official Confederate records, there were not less than 
1,000,000, and according to many estimates made from 
Confederate records — more than i ,000,000. 

This corresponds with the figures given by the latest 
and most reliable historian, Woodrow Wilson, who, we have 
seen, places the number of Federal soldiers at 1,700,000. 
And in regard to the Confederates he uses this language: 

"The total military population of the South was 
1,065,000. 900,000 of tliese she drew into the armies." 

To this 900,000 must be added, of course, those who 
went from the border States, which would make the num- 
ber at least 1,000,000. 

This eminent author, in stating the total military popu- 
lation of the South at 1,065,000, only gives the number 
as it stood at the outset of the war. In the course of 
the four years of struggle others came up to the requi- 
site age, and were freely used, as shown not only by this 
author himself, but also by the President of the Confed- 
eracy in his speech in Georgia, in the year 1864. 



WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 25 

Nor does this statement of the mihtary population of 
the South exhaust its resources in men. It is well known 
that there is much to be done in warfare beside what is 
done on the firing line. A vast amount of work and labor 
must be performed, requiring even greater physical strength 
than to carry and fire the musket. The 3,000,000 or 
4,000,000 of negroes in the South are by no means to 
be left out in considering the strength of the Con- 
federacy. 

Jefferson Davis says in his history. Volume i, page 303: 
"Much of our success was due to the much abused insti- 
" tution of African servitude, for it enabled the white men 
"to go into the army and leave the cultivation of their 
" fields and care of their flocks, as well as their wives and 
" children, to those who, in the language of the Constitu- 
" tion, were 'held to service or labor.'" 

From the beginning of the struggle to the end, negroes 
were employed in large numbers to do the work which in 
the Federal armies was done by enlisted soldiers. Mr. 
Davis might, therefore, enlarge his remark that the negroes 
did the home work while the white men were fighting, by 
saying also that negroes did the fatigue duty of the armies 
while the white soldiers fought on the front line. 

We read in Scripture that when the people of Israel, 
on their return from Babylon, were rebuilding the walls of 
Jerusalem, in constant dread of enemies, one half wrought 
in the work, while the other half held the spear and shield. 

Not unlike this was the situation during our great 
struggle. The population of the South was about two- 
thirds white and one-third negroes. The two-thirds han- 
dled the spear and shield while the other third wrought in 
work and labor, not alone on the farms, but along with the 
armies in the field. 



26 WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 

Fort Donelson was constructed by negro labor drawn 
from Tennessee and Kentucky by forcible impressment. 
The records show that negroes labored on the fortifications 
for the army of Northern Virginia from Manassas to Peters- 
burg. Also at Fort Fisher and Wilmington, and Charleston 
and Savannah, in Georgia, at Vicksburg, and all other points. 
The reports of Confederate generals, of the Confederate 
government, and of State governments, make numerous 
mention of negro labor. At an early period Generals 
Magruder and Kirby Smith, in the West, report that many 
soldiers were detailed as teamsters and that their places 
should be supplied by negroes. The Confederate Congress 
authorized this to be done. General Beauregard ordered 
negroes to be employed on fortifications. At one time 
General Lee called for 6,000 negroes to labor on fortifi- 
cations, and was authorized to impress them. Again, the 
Secretary of War directed General Lee to impress 20,000 
negroes for employment in the army. General Bragg 
advocated calling out the negroes just as troops were 
called out. The Legislatures of the States passed laws 
for impressment of negroes. The authorities at Richmond 
authorized the military to obtain as many slaves as were 
necessary for repairing railroads. 

Such are some of the numerous proofs found in the 
official records of the immense use of negroes in perform- 
ing the labor of the army which would otherwise have 
fallen upon the soldiers, thus releasing the soldier from 
handling the pick and spade and axe and wagon whip, so 
that he might handle the musket. 

Against the armament of the South, with all its strength 
as shown by the record facts, the soldiers for the Union had 
to advance and contend. They were to stand to the work 



WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 27 

until organized effort to dismember the great American 
republic was broken to pieces and destroyed. The sol- 
diers who by repeated re-enlistments made the paper aggre- 
gate of 2,700,000, but in actual numbers were not more 
than 1,700,000, had to carry on the war through difficulties 
which appear insurmountable as we now look back upon 
them. That it required more soldiers to wage the war 
against the Confederacy than were necessary to defend it, 
is too plain a proposition for anything but simple mention. 
General Thruston, in discussing the subject, illustrates it by 
the war in South Africa. He says superiority of ten or 
more to one did not bring success to British arms at once. 
Great Britain sent out 445,000 soldiers against 30,000 or 
40,000 Boers. Yet this "wretched little population of 
Boers," as Lord Salisbury called them, defied the power and 
prowess of the whole British Empire for two or three years. 
The fighting qualities of the people of the seceded 
States, the skill of their officers, the enthusiasm for their 
cause, were all of the highest order. Such people were not 
to be quickly overcome. They had a great and rich ter- 
ritory, and the aid of a laboring population, able-bodied, 
and completely subservient. They fought on the defen- 
sive, with short lines of communication, with no foe in the 
rear. That their cause did not succeed reflects a credit 
upon the fighting qualities of the national soldiery, and 
upon the ability of their leaders, which makes all words 
of praise insignificant. The best material of the country 
volunteered to save the Union, and no eulogy can do jus- 
tice to the great uprising. The sudden display of energy, 
the march in panoply of war, the purely patriotic enthu- 
siasm, the continued resolution, and undying courage and 
devotion through campaigns and battle, all go to make 
up the brightest page in the annals of war. 



28 WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 

The histor}^ of the great struggle was written and 
recorded as it progressed. It is contained in the docu- 
ments and reports of the period. To the extent this docu- 
mentary history is falsified by subsequent writings, the 
truth is disregarded. When writers set down Federal 
victories as due to "overwhelming numbers," they are 
not writing history but sentiment. When every Confed- 
erate defeat is attributed to "fearful odds" and the 
"thin gray line," the words used have no basis in fact. 
When great Confederate triumphs are declared to have 
been barely frustrated by some purely accidental "if," the 
stubborn records rise up in irresistible ridicule." 

No writing since the war deserves the name of history, 
unless the writer duly respects the record facts of the 
period. No writer who puts down 2,700,000 soldiers 
against 600,000 soldiers is to be respected as a historian. 
No sentimentalist who will have it that it was a case of 
one Southerner to five Yankees states the truth. The 
task was accomplished without great disproportion. The 
odds were not great, but small, considering the stupendous 
task. And therefore, under all the circumstances attending 
advance on one side and defense on the other, no writing 
can be called history, which does not catch the full spirit 
of the magnificent courage of the national soldiery. 

Nothing but foolish sentiment can fail to see the tre- 
mendous fact, that in number but little exceeding a million 
and a half, they waged successful war against a million 
or more fighting on their own ground. 

What possible praise can do justice to that devoted 
band who went forth from the loyal element of the country 
and followed the flag until it waved over a reunited land? 

Consider the army of the Potomac. Upon it was cast 
the double duty of defending the national capital, and 



WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 29 

of advancing against the Confederate army. From the 
beginning, the capture of Washington was contemplated. 
It was freely said the Confederate flag would soon float 
over the Capitol. Alexander Stephens pointed out that, as 
Maryland was a Southern State, the District of Columbia 
belonged to the South, and declared its surrender would be 
enforced. It was felt that the capture of Washington, more 
tlian anything else, would induce foreign recognition. To 
guard against this, a portion of the army remained in the 
defenses, whatever was the nature of the campaign. The 
greatest triumph the Confederates could have achieved 
would have been taking the national capital. Thus both 
armies had a mission, offensive and defensive. Both were 
contending for the mastery. It was as much the duty of 
the Confederates to overcome the Union Arm)-, as for the 
Union Army to overcome them. For nearly four years they 
fought each other, without the capture of either Richmond 
or Washington. The aggressive movements of both armies 
were baffled, and both were entitled to the highest credit 
for tenacit}' of purpose. If the army of the Potomac was 
turned back in its advances, it also turned back the great 
advances of its antagonist. At Antietam, and Gettysburg, 
and in Early's attempt to capture Washington, it was the 
army of the Potomac which successfully resisted. At the 
last, when the crossing of the Rapidan appeared to fail as 
formerly, the army of the Potomac greeted with shouts 
the order to move on, and finally broke through every 
obstacle and followed its retreating foe to utter overthrow. 
In every other section there was regular and steady 
progress from the beginning. West Virginia and Missouri 
were soon occupied permanently. Success at Mill Spring 
and Donelson cleared Kentucky and a large part of Ten- 
nessee. Nashville, Memphis and New Orleans were taken. 



30 WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 

Then Chattanooga, Vicksburg and Knoxville. Then 
Atlanta, Savannah and Mobile. In all this progress, noth- 
ing gained was given up. All places taken were won 
against fierce resistance, and held by forces left to guard 
them. It would be impossible to mention any soldiery in 
any age or country which exemplified in a higher degree 
all the best qualities of soldiership than those of the 
western armies, who followed Buell, Rosecrans, Thomas, 
Sherman, Grant, accomplishing these results. 

These armies pushed their way southward, guarding as 
they went, and drawing supplies from an increasingly dis- 
tant rear. Long lines of communication had to be con- 
stantly guarded against organized raids, and against small 
bands, which sprang up among a hostile population. 
Guarding the country, as the forward movement went on, 
depleted the forces at the front. Like a volume of water 
started toward a plain, the head pushed on, but much was 
left behind. Thus the national troops were scattered, 
while their opponents concentrated, and at the front the 
attenuated lines in blue contended against equal or even 
greater numbers massed behind defenses which had to be 
carried. 

Sometimes it seemed the difficulties were insuperable. 
The hearts of statesmen failed. A great party pronounced 
the war a failure, and its candidate for the Presidency 
against the ever faithful Lincoln, received forty-five per 
cent, of the votes of the people of those States from which 
the soldiers of the Union had to be drawn. 

But with the volunteers in the field who had gone from 
the loyal homes in the loyal States to fight the battle, 
there was no thought but to continue the struggle. The 
three-year men re-enlisted for the war, while freezing and 
starving at the front, in the winter of 1863 and 1864. 



WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLE 31 

Commanders of armies, corps, divisions, regiments and 
companies, and enlisted men, suffered deprivations together, 
confident they would work out the problem. 

On the other side there was similarity, and yet contrast. 
The Confederates endured and contended tenaciously. 
They suffered and struggled, and in this they were like their 
opponents; but, from first to last, they never accomplished 
a single affirmative success. They often postponed success 
to the Federals, but all their own best laid schemes to 
achieve real victory came to naught. The forward move- 
ment at Shiloh was turned back. Bragg's movement into 
Kentucky was a dismal failure. The victory at Chicka- 
mauga was barren of results. Longstreet's movement to 
Knoxville failed. Hood's advance upon Nashville wrecked 
his army. In the East the invasion of Maryland failed 
at Antietam, and the advance into Pennsylvania failed 
at Gettj^sburg. Early's effort to capture Washington was 
a failure. From first to last, they never took and held any 
place whatever. 

All things considered, it is not strange that the struggle 
lasted four years. It is, in fact, a marvel that an organi- 
zation so vast and powerful as the Confederacy, was so 
completely overthrown. 

That we now have a government under which we 
can live in peace, is due to the armies which fought the 
battle for the Union. That we have a country standing 
to-day foremost among the nations of the world, and for 
which its whole people, irrespective of sectional lines, are 
filled with patriotic pride, is because in the hour of its 
peril its defenders rallied to the flag, and followed and 
upheld it until all became united under its folds. 



LIBRfiRY OF CONGRESS 



I mil 

013 702 993 5 



y 



